LI v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Shiyong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 26, 2015 order denying his motion to reopen proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Li failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016). Li did not adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to demonstrate an objectively well-founded fear that he would be persecuted by the Chinese government based upon his political activities in the United States. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2004). As the BIA explained, Li has not presented sufficient evidence that the Chinese government will target him in China. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, Li is not a high-profile activist, he submitted articles that do not relate to him, and the letter from his daughter is vague.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.